Threaded index     Date index     FAQ


yes, social mobility is a terrible thing

Posted by kit on 2024-April-9 05:45:10, Tuesday
In reply to There was a time when women knew their place... posted by Manstuprator on 2024-April-9 04:09:58, Tuesday

For most of human history, people have indeed 'known their place' - the role into which they were born, and which accorded them a purpose in life and a measure of dignity. This is not just true for women but for men too (because women, like men, were born into a range of different stations and destinies - though at every level the expectations of men and women were of course different).

This relatively rigid social structure gave stability and predictability to human social life. But more than that, it produced societies attuned to the reality of human interdependence. The rich man in his castle (as the hymn has it) knew both the undeservedness of his position and his moral indebtedness to the poor man at his gate. And so social strata were bound together by ties of mutual obligation - even if not everyone expected to receive the same treatment.

This organic social structure was profoundly upset by the advent of industrial capitalism, which created new forms of social and physical mobility, and by the quasi-Darwinian ideology of liberal meritocracy, whereby the rich rise not by virtue of their birth but because of their own industriousness and excellence of character - and the poor struggle or sink because of their own personal failures. At the same time, old structures of deference began to be eroded at precisely the moment that material inequalities ballooned beyond the imagination of our pre-modern ancestors.

(Parenthetically, I think that the removal of the thou/you distinction in English - unlike virtually every other European language, which retains a formal and informal second-person pronoun - has a great deal to answer for; it creates a spurious symbolic equality between master and man which both disguises and justifies the increasingly remote material worlds that the two inhabited by the 19th century.)

The toxicity of the liberal capitalist doctrine of merit is something that I think we are only now beginning to recognise, though its perverseness is perhaps most superbly encapsulated in that bizarrely American-evanglical phenomenon of the 'prosperity gospel' - the idea that wealth and success in life reflects not an onerous moral responsibility but merely divine approval for exceptional personal piety (a perverse and monstrous child of the rigorously predestinarian Calvin).

The ideology of meritocracy has transformed an organic society of interdependent classes (unified, ideally, by shared obligations to God and to each other) into a war of all against all, in which the poor are stripped of all dignity and - further - told that their position is the product of their own fecklessness and defects of character. This is the very definition of adding insult to injury.

I have no idea if any of this is what you mean to suggest above, but might I suggest that you are not nearly reactionary/radical enough? Let our cry be: "Crush capitalism; restore feudalism!"


Follow ups:

Post a response:

Nickname:

Password:

Email (optional):
Subject:


Message:


Link URL (optional):

Link Title (optional):


Add your sigpic?

Here are Seven Rules for posting on this forum.

1. Do not post erotica or overly-detailed sexual discussions.
2. Do not request, offer, or post links to illegal material, including pictures.
3. Don't annoy the cogs.
4. Do not reveal identifying details about yourself or other posters.
5. Do not advocate or counsel sex with minors.
6. Do not post admissions of, or accuse others of, potentially illegal activities.
7. Do not request meetings with posters who are under age 18.

Posts made to BoyChat are subject to inclusion in the monthly BoyChat Digest. If you do not want your posts archived in the BC Digest, or want specific posts of yours removed after inclusion, please email The BC Digest.